Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1887-02-10
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.


United States Senate on the Ssndry Civil
Appropriations BiIl-The Sinking Fund
and Our Coast Defenses-The Exposed
Condition of Our Seacoast and Lake
Cities.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2-The Senate, shortly
after one O'Clock, resumed consideration of the
Sundry Civil Appropriations bill.
Mr.. Allison, chairman of the committee on
appropriations, said that the Senator from
Connecticut (P1att had inquired of him yester-
day whether or not there would be q surplus
in the treasury in case Congress made appro-
priations in accordance with the estimates OF
the departments In his desire to complete the
bill last night he had failed to answer that
inquiry as fully he might have done. The
regular estimates OF the department is,
as submitted by the Secretary OF the
TO S378.00O,O0O Since that time there
had been supplementary and other
estimates amounting to considerable sum.
For example, there estimate of near
ly 100000 to carry out the provisions Of the
Mexican Pension bill. No estimate had been
yet submitted. AS to the Disabilities Pension
bill, which both houses had passed. but which
had not yet received the signature OF the Presi-
dent, it safe to assume, however, that
seven eight million dollare would be re-
quired for that purpose. Then there had been
already submitted estimates for DEFICIENCIES
amounting to seven millions more. So that the
total OF the estimates for the next fiscal year
without Including miscellaneous appro
priations) amounted to 1896, 100000. He
thought it safe to assume, however, that
ConeNesS, would not appropriate fully up TO
the estimates. In further reply to Mr.. Platt.
Mr. Allison said that the estimates were in ex-
cess OF estimates hitherto made by the depart
aments in similar cases, and were perhaps in ex-
cess OF the immediate necessities OF he Gov
eminent.
MT. Platt-Do these estimates of 1895, 100000
include any considerable amount for coast de-
lenses?
Mr. Allison-They include 100000 for forti-
locations. The total navy estimate is $50, O00
50 that assume that these estimates do not in
cfude what we would regard sufficient ex-
penditure for coast defenSeS or the navy II we
should enter on that subject,
Mr.. Platt-Five million dollars for fortifica-
tions is practically nothing.
Mr.. Wilson Ga-)-Does this 1895, 100000 in
c1ude the amount that is to be laid aside for the
sinking fund?
Mr.. Allison-That is included.
Mr.. Platt-So that II Congress should deem
1t necessary to expend a larger sum than
IS 0OO, 600 for coast defenses that larger sum
would increase tke estimates beyond 1895, ooo-
900?
Mr. Allison-Yes; and If we should appropri-
ate more than $50, 900 for the navy that over
appropriation must be added The bin
passed by the House does appropriate $4,000
600. Now, as to the receipts Tor
the year ending June 30, 1886. They were
1896, 600, 900 as stated by the Secretary of the
Treasury IN his message, but that does not in
clude the receipts from postal revenue. and
those receipts must be added to the 1885,
100000. For the year 1886, the postal revenue
was sd, 900, that the receipts for last year
amounted to $3.50, 100000. This year the Post
master GeHeral estimates that the postal
revenues will be fifty million dollars. Think
in view of the actual receipts of last year that
it is high estimate. do not believe they will
reach $50000,090 But assuming that they will,
and assuming that the Ordinary revenues OF
the Government are what they were last year
1886. 600. 000), then have in round numbers
1886, 100000 as the gross receipts for the fiscal
year 1SS7SS. These receipts will not be
added to except from duties on
imports. mean that Ehatever increase of
receipts there may be will have TO come from
customs receipts. The customs receipts Tor the
year 1886 were S192, 10000. For the first SIX
months of this fiscal year they amounted tc
$1I,000,O00 so that there has been an increase OF
between ten and eleven millions in the first six
months of this year, as compared with the
same period lasteyear. Assuming that that in
crease continues 0throughout the fiscal year,
the amount from customs duties for the cur
rent year will be S2140dO, OSo The total receipts
OF revenue for the hrst half OF this fiscal year
amount to SlS0OO0,0OQ- SO that If that rate con
1inues will have u total revenue of S3G0-0O0,:
for this carrent year, as compared with 1896
00d,000 for the last fiscal year. In these esti-
mates for the current year I do not include
postal receipts, nor are they included in the
&S3@3O0,000 for last year. so that we will have
f3G0,000000 of receipts and an expenditure of
1905. OOO.000
Mr.. Morridl-Do you not thsnk that we ought to
make some difference between the first half OF
the fiscal year and the last half: I think that
the receipts from customs are usually much
larger in the first half than in the second half.
Mr.. AllisOn-It happens so sometimes, and
sometimes the reverse happens. 1 take the
receipts, therefore, 1860 600 600 for next ye1r
Add the estimated postal revenue, and che
receipts will be S41O,OOO,OOo. Then II we take
the estimates of expenditures as suggested by
the Senator from Connecticut CPlatD as the
measure of our expenditures OF 1878 Ito which
should be added the amount of pension legisla-
tom, we have total expenditure of 1896, Ooa-
900, which will make the surplus (being tie
question asked by the Senator from Con-
necticut) S1aoo0,OOO II comply with the
law in relation to the sinking fund, then
are compelled to buy bonds in the open market
either four and one half or four per cent. bonds
or the currency skies issued to Pacific rail-
roads.
Mr. Teller-why does the Senator say ~
we comply with the sinking fund law Is not
that law imperative! Can there be any ques
ton but that the Government VIII provide &C
<ording to law for the sinking fund:
Mr.. Allison-There is question whether the
Government is bound to purchase it's own bonds
in the open market at a large premium for the
purpose of complying Hith the sinking fund re-
qarement, while in fact the sinking fund is
BOW over S3O0,0OQ0o in excess of the require
ments.
Mr. Terer-The Sinking Fund act provides
not for a total amount, but for so much each
year
Ms Allison-In my Judgment the Govern
inert is not bound by law, or in good faith, to
the bondholders TO purchase at premium
bonds that not yet due, while the sinking
fund. projected for the benefit of the bond
holders, is more than three hundred millions in
advance of tse general requirements of the
Sinking Fund law. White admit that the let
ter of Ghe law requires the setting apart Of one
per ceE1. of the total debt each year. still that
is reqGirehent which can be set aside by law
IN good faith. 1t is question whether or not the
promoters of that law intended the Govern
ment should go into the open market and pay
premium of twenty eight per cent. for its bonds
in order 10 comply with that provision.
Mr.. IpgaEls-How does 1t happen (the law be-
ing imperative as to the annual amount TO be
set aside f0r the sinking fund.- that that fund
is now three hundred millions in excess of the